Comments on: Big Four

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:00:22 +0000

Pretty simplistic argument against term limits, and myopic view of public opinion, which is huge in favor of Term Limits “as is”. Term limits opponents (generally legislators, lobbyists, and their retainers) claim that Term Limits puts legislators out of office before they can get the experience needed to do the job, and that the current legislature lacks “institutional knowledge” as a result. Bill Ballenger has shown with empirical evidence there never was such a thing as “institutional knowledge” in the legislature. Rotation in office has been the norm in Michigan’s history, and now we are back to normal. Read his article (republished with permission) in Michigan Term Limits 2008.PDF
Term Limits 2008 – Inside Michigan Politics Feb 25, 2008, Vol XI, NO. 31
http://donttouchtermlimits.googlepages.com/MIchTermLimits2008.PDF

By: Tim Kelly

Tim Kelly — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:51:14 +0000

Regarding another readers comment about Granholm having to deal with Senate Republicans, can you imagine where MI would be now without their foot on the brake? Scary.

By: Bob Geake

Bob Geake — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:04:48 +0000

Good job, Tim. I served in the legislature during the Milliken, Blanchard, and Engler adminstrations and as Racing Commissioner under Gov. Granholm (until she found a qualified Democrat to replace me). Although John Engler may be remembered as more openly Machiavellian than the others (“It is better to be feared than to be loved”), I believe that history will remember him as the most far sighted governor and the first state leader to truely grasp the depths of the coming recession in Michigan, the need for welfare reform, and the courage to impose executive orders blancing state budgets. Authors like Roger Martin, Nolan Finley, the Detoit News Lansing Bureau (remember them?) and Gleaves Whitmney captured his strategies and contributions well.

By: Steve Mitchell

Steve Mitchell — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:22:23 +0000

Great analysis. I knew Milliken when I was a young man, Engler for all of his career (though I was and am not close), know Blanchard well now, and have met Granholm several times.

Each was very good at understanding the voters in this state. Each wanted to do what was best for this state.

They differed dramatically in how they worked to do it.

The more time that has passed since a governor has served, the less partisan politics will determine how they are graded. Plus, Milliken was much more bi-partisan than his three successors.

However, as indicated earlier, a good assessment.

By: Jack Minore

Jack Minore — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:47:51 +0000

Part of Milliken’s strength was long service. Part, also, was the fact that he worked with a very experienced and (almost all the time) a good and experienced Democratic legislature. He may have been the best Governor — but it was, at least in part, because of experience (pre-term limits!) and cooperation betwen the legislature and administration — which, as you point out, Engler essentially destroyed.

By: Bill Gill

Bill Gill — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:51:32 +0000

I enjoyed Tim’s take on the Governors and agree
with him generally. Milliken was, overall, the
best Governor by far in my opinion. I am surprised
at Tim’s omission of any mention of the boys
Republican in the Michigan Senate. Granholm has
had a tough time with that lot. Reminds me a
little of what’s going on in D.C.